Exactly KP. We should "let" free people make their own choices. Or, are you of the opinion that someone can still be "free" while their govt. tells them what color shoes to wear and what to put on their heads and what to brush their teeth with? -Sean

My buddy in full gear got run down by an SUV, he was wearing a helmet and lived. When I low-sided my R11S, it hit a curb and then flipped over a couple times, my full-face saved me from having my head snapped off at the neck and almost from losing the left side of my face.

I like my skin too much, I know I cannot live without it. I will always wear my helmet and will always make sure my passenger has one on. I do not wish for MY health insurance rates to go up (as was seen immediately in Pennsy, so I hear ...) when fools decide to crash while helmet-less.

I like the states that force you to sign a waiver if you choose to not wear a helmet. My insurance should not save your dumbass if you choose to enjoy having bugs, rocks, cigarette, spit, etc. fly into your face at high-speeds or if you choose to enjoy having your skin and muscle torn away from your eyesocket as you slide down the hiway.

Wear it, why tempt fate even more? Or are you the type that says, "I'd rather be dead than in a wheelchair." Watch Johnny Got His Gun recently?

The first line: "My buddy in full gear got run down by an SUV, he was wearing a helmet and lived."-- should read "My buddy in full gear got run down by an SUV, he was wearing a helmet and DID NOT live."

Drug costs are based on supply/demand. The argument that lower costs of approval in Canada mean lower costs makes no sense unless you can show that for a given condition, Canada has significantly more approved drugs. I'll give you very good odds that that's not what you'll find.

You'd probably find it more the case that approval costs around the world are lower than here because others let the FDA do the hard work and quickly accept, without any meaningful oversight of their own, what the FDA approves.

Less regulation of scientific issues that 95-99.9% of the public is ill equiped, ill educated and ill informed to decide on is not freedom to choose for consumers it's freedom to abuse for hucksters and snake-oil salesman in a field where hucksterism can easily equal murder.

Thanks:Ive been tryingto come upwith a good response and you nailed it. The govt shouldnt be in the business of protecting me from myself.Although I almost always wear a seatbelt and would almost always wear a helmet if Md, didnt have a helmet law,I am adamantly opposed to laws which require me to use them and fine me if I dont. Dont tell me that riding helmetless is stupider than riding in a fullface with shorts,tank top and tennis shoes with no socks. Should there be laws to require long pants,protective jackets,boots and gloves? Where is the consistency?......it should be MY job to draw the lines regarding my personal safety,not the governments.

We use cookies to improve your experience on this website and so that ads you see online can be tailored to your online browsing interests.
We use data about you for a number of purposes explained in the links below. By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of data and cookies.
Tell me more |
Cookie Preferences

We use cookies to improve your experience on this website and so that ads you see online can be tailored to your online browsing interests. We use data about you for a number of purposes explained in the links below. By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of data and cookies.Tell me more | Cookie Preferences